Not to beat a dead horse here, but it has been bugging me lately.

I see people averaging 220+ on "house" conditions, with no real versatility, and no game other than big revs. Their spare shooting sucks.  I see guys that can miss by 5 boards in or out and still crush the pocket.   The same guys can easily shoot 450 without the free hook outside and hold inside.

I also see guys in more competitive leagues, where the shot is intentionally challenging, bring a 20X average into a tourney and get pins.  These same guys can average 220+ on walls.  This hardly seems ethical and it hurts turnout.

I guess my point is ... Can we PLEASE get rid of wall shots?  I remember the local USBC/ABC office would run tapes regularly to check for illegal "block" shots, which are known as "walls" or "THS" today.  What happened?

The combination of reactive resin equipment, blocked walls, and pins that fly like crazy has turned bowling into parody of itself.  Shot making is no longer rewarded and accuracy seems to have taken a backseat to power.  If you have both, then you are deadly but us mere mortals cannot hit dimes while putting 500 RPM on the ball.... and that brings up the 2 handed / thumb-less argument which I will not engage in but I will say I believe it should be illegal.

I know its an old, worn out subject, but the game has been destroyed.  Some people will argue that it has evolved.  I reject that.  Where is the real test of skill?

I think we could take a lesson from the PGA .... they got rid of square grooves (to put premium on accuracy over power and hit fairways), and make anchored putting illegal (it gives the golfer a physical advantage).  You can draw the same parallels to bowling....

-Lastly, increase dues to $50 annually.  This is necessary to run a governing body.  Ffs people pay $50 just for the privilege to shop at Costco

USBC hasn't done anything since becoming USBC to warrant $50 dues.

Not that I would support it, but if dues were $50 just for the national level my sport league would have half the league pushing to go unsanctioned

Quote from: agroves on January 29, 2018, 10:45:13 PM

-Lastly, increase dues to $50 annually.  This is necessary to run a governing body.  Ffs people pay $50 just for the privilege to shop at Costco

USBC hasn't done anything since becoming USBC to warrant $50 dues.

Not that I would support it, but if dues were $50 just for the national level my sport league would have half the league pushing to go unsanctioned

What are they supposed to do with $13? Chad Murphy is incompetent.  Yes, I’ll give you that...but bowlers are fucking crybabies.  They don’t get a 200 game pin and it’s the end of the world.  $13 barely gets you a good burger, fries and amp drink these days...yet bowlers expect it to move mountains.  We are paying for what we get

Quote from: agroves on January 30, 2018, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: HackJandy on January 30, 2018, 10:47:59 AM

Quote from: agroves on January 29, 2018, 10:45:13 PM

IMO these things are overdue:


-Max diff at .050

-Increase bowling ball hardness by 5%

-set and enforcing a ratio rule of 10:1 for 2019
—reduce the ratio to 9:1 for 2020
—reduce the ratio to 8:1 for 2021
....go all the way to 6:1 slowly reducing the ratio over a half decade
Then, sanction leagues as recreational, challenge and sport

-Lastly, increase dues to $50 annually.  This is necessary to run a governing body.  Ffs people pay $50 just for the privilege to shop at Costco

Costco offers clear benefits.  USBC does not at least for rec leagues which the corporate bowling centers themselves can handle perfectly well.  Granted if I was going to put my own money at risk I would agree $50 to make sure its fair would be reasonable but even then how good are they at making it fair.  People suck and will cheat when they can for money (even see sandbagging in my rec league for absolutely no reason why except ego I guess).  The other edge to not putting my money at risk is I don't give a rats ass about the other guy's equipment.  I sure look at my own series score (only thing that matters to me) more than wins or loses.  I may be the minority but perfectly fine with that.  At some point maybe I will get sanctioned for tournaments but only once I see how this equipment debacle shakes out.  In no rush.

I don’t like defending the USBC but it is ran by incompetent people.  But, there are clear benefits like a level playing field, equipment guidelines, national tournament to name a few.

Those are clear benefits to a national governing board but not necessarily the USBC.  If they think they don't have much money now wait until they start banning people's arsenal and half the leagues in the country go unsanctioned.

Do you have facts to back up your claim or are you just fear mongering?

Quote from: HackJandy on January 30, 2018, 11:19:58 PM

Quote from: agroves on January 30, 2018, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: HackJandy on January 30, 2018, 10:47:59 AM

Quote from: agroves on January 29, 2018, 10:45:13 PM

IMO these things are overdue:


-Max diff at .050

-Increase bowling ball hardness by 5%

-set and enforcing a ratio rule of 10:1 for 2019
—reduce the ratio to 9:1 for 2020
—reduce the ratio to 8:1 for 2021
....go all the way to 6:1 slowly reducing the ratio over a half decade
Then, sanction leagues as recreational, challenge and sport

-Lastly, increase dues to $50 annually.  This is necessary to run a governing body.  Ffs people pay $50 just for the privilege to shop at Costco

Costco offers clear benefits.  USBC does not at least for rec leagues which the corporate bowling centers themselves can handle perfectly well.  Granted if I was going to put my own money at risk I would agree $50 to make sure its fair would be reasonable but even then how good are they at making it fair.  People suck and will cheat when they can for money (even see sandbagging in my rec league for absolutely no reason why except ego I guess).  The other edge to not putting my money at risk is I don't give a rats ass about the other guy's equipment.  I sure look at my own series score (only thing that matters to me) more than wins or loses.  I may be the minority but perfectly fine with that.  At some point maybe I will get sanctioned for tournaments but only once I see how this equipment debacle shakes out.  In no rush.

I don’t like defending the USBC but it is ran by incompetent people.  But, there are clear benefits like a level playing field, equipment guidelines, national tournament to name a few.

Those are clear benefits to a national governing board but not necessarily the USBC.  If they think they don't have much money now wait until they start banning people's arsenal and half the leagues in the country go unsanctioned.

Do you have facts to back up your claim or are you just fear mongering?

If you are referring to the rumors about USBC imposing new ball specs that would make many current balls illegal, please see the following links where this has all been discussed previously:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sxTQoMHNCcjnxhi7LK1sVEjN6YiZyFKI/view

https://www.facebook.com/USBCChadMurphy/posts/818683678308781

http://www.ballreviews.com/miscellaneous/a-thought-on-the-proposed-ball-specs-adjustment-by-usbc-t315376.0.html

http://www.ballreviews.com/miscellaneous/usbc-possible-outlawing-balls-t315344.0.html

http://www.ballreviews.com/miscellaneous/above180-podcast-mo-pinel-on-what-the-possible-usbc-rule-changes-mean-to-you-t315381.0.html

http://www.ballreviews.com/miscellaneous/about-making-some-balls-illegal-t315345.0.html

Speaking strictly for my area, banning house shots would be devastating. I could see losing at least half of all bowlers. Even with easy patterns and high tech balls, the number of honor scores are fairly low. True, averages are higher but the majority are still not 200 and above. If we force the majority to bowl on tough patterns, they're just not going to have fun bowling 120 games. And for what it costs to bowl and all the other things they could be doing... they'd just stop bowling. I don't really care for how bowling has evolved over the last thirty years but i definitely don't want to see the sport lose more people.

Speaking strictly for my area, banning house shots would be devastating. I could see losing at least half of all bowlers. Even with easy patterns and high tech balls, the number of honor scores are fairly low. True, averages are higher but the majority are still not 200 and above. If we force the majority to bowl on tough patterns, they're just not going to have fun bowling 120 games. And for what it costs to bowl and all the other things they could be doing... they'd just stop bowling. I don't really care for how bowling has evolved over the last thirty years but i definitely don't want to see the sport lose more people.

Some people seem to think that if a 220 average bowler drops 30 pins to 190 because of a tougher pattern, than a 165 average bowler drops to 135. It doesn't work that way.

We run a true sport league, and have been for about 10 years now, and the league is made up of all styles and levels or competitors, as it isn't a money league, more a league for education. The drop in a bowlers average is definitely on a curve.


Besides, no one, including the USBC, is saying that all leagues should go to a "SPORT" condition. Most people who have voiced their opinion in favor of it, would just like to see a little more of a blend, instead of a flat out wall, to at least showcase good bowling to equate to good "scoring". There have been multiple times in my life, that I have thrown the ball not great for a set, but "scored" really high because of all the miss area on the lane, BUT have also had those times that I have thrown the ball great, but scored marginally because of lack of carry and subsequent transition, because I wasn't throwing it bad enough to "use the pattern". Throw five shots at five different places on the lane, and ALL five strike, you are still bowling on a fresh shot. Label five shots on top of each other, you have altered the pattern more, and will change the shot.

Another problem is vocabulary in this industry. If the shot isn't called a "house shot", than it MUST be a "sport shot", and bowlers think that way and get their panties in a bunch before ever throwing a shot. It's just not true.
Use the term "modified house shot", and people perceive it as easier than calling a shot a "challenge pattern", when in all fairness, they probably have about the same ratios.

Speaking strictly for my area, banning house shots would be devastating. I could see losing at least half of all bowlers. Even with easy patterns and high tech balls, the number of honor scores are fairly low. True, averages are higher but the majority are still not 200 and above. If we force the majority to bowl on tough patterns, they're just not going to have fun bowling 120 games. And for what it costs to bowl and all the other things they could be doing... they'd just stop bowling. I don't really care for how bowling has evolved over the last thirty years but i definitely don't want to see the sport lose more people.

^this